Border Republicans vs. Inflation Republicans

We released a new Marquette Law School Poll of Wisconsin voters today. It includes a lot of details about topics like the Wisconsin Supreme Court race (voters aren’t paying much attention yet), the gubernatorial primary (voters aren’t paying attention to that either), and data centers (voters really don’t like them).

Here’s one result from the poll that stood out to me. It comes from a bog-standard polling question that we ask variations of in most surveys. “Which one of the following issues matters MOST to you right now?” We occasionally change the response options based on what’s in the news.

In this poll and our previous October poll, we offered the same 8 options. The choices were jobs and the economy, inflation and the cost of living, public schools, illegal immigration and border security, abortion policy, crime in your community, gun violence, health insurance, taxes, and affordability of housing.

If I had to summarize the consensus as to why Donald Trump won in 2024, two policy issues would rise to the top (setting aside incumbency advantage and the drama around Biden). They are concerns about affordability/inflation and border security/immigration. Trump’s 2024 campaign succeeded in capturing support from voters who cared about each of these, but the two issues share no basic ideological connection.

Trump has, during his first year, struggled to satisfy both concerns. His administration has spent a great deal of political capital on anti-immigration measures. On affordability, Trump has struggled to find a message, insisting at times that the whole issue is a Democratic “hoax.”

Nonetheless, these two issues remain the two most important for Wisconsin Republicans in our surveys. In October, 23% of Republicans (including Republican-leaning independents) listed inflation and the cost of living as their top issue, while 31% chose illegal immigration and border security. In February, the balance flipped, as 27% chose inflation and 22% immigration.

I thought pooling the two surveys might yield some interesting insights into these two large groups of Republicans—those who worry most about affordability and the cost of living vs. those whose main concern is illegal immigration and border security. As shorthand, I’ll call these “border Republicans” and “inflation Republicans.”

Demographic Differences Between Border and Inflation Republicans

Across those two surveys, 25% of Republicans chose inflation and 27% chose immigration/border security as their most important issues. So, among Republicans as a whole, 2 percentage points more preferred immigration and border security. Here is the same calculation for a bunch of different groups within the Republican party.

The biggest gaps are along ideological and age lines.

graph showing the relative number the share of republicans (among different groups) who say inflation and the cost of living is a more important issue than illegal immigration and border security

Self-described “moderates” made up 21% of Republicans in this sample, and they prioritized inflation by 23 points. Self-described “very conservative” Republicans made up a similar 25% of the total, and they prioritized illegal immigration and border security by 17 points.

About a fifth of Wisconsin Republicans are under age 36, and this group prioritized inflation by 21 points. At the other end of the spectrum, 28% of Republicans are over age 65, and they prioritized the border by 25 points.

About a quarter of Wisconsin Republicans identify as a born again or evangelical Christian. They prioritized the border by 12 points. All other protestants (32% of Republicans) prioritized inflation by 6 points. Catholics were evenly divided.

Other differences were smaller. Female Republicans prioritized inflation by 3 points; male Republicans prioritized the border by 4 points. Republicans with no more than a high school degree prioritized the border by 11 points. Those with a college degree preferred inflation by 3 points. There was little difference at all between Republicans by income.

Differences in the Attitudes of Border and Inflation Republicans

Republicans whose top priority is addressing inflation and the cost of living tend to be younger, and more self-consciously moderate. Those who prioritize addressing illegal immigration and border security tend to be older, conservative, and evangelical. In Wisconsin, the two groups are roughly equal in size, and together make up about half the party.

Do these differences in priority translate to different attitudes toward Trump and his party?

First of all, there isn’t much difference in how these people view the Democratic party. Border Republicans are 98% unfavorable and 0% favorable. Inflation Republicans are 92% unfavorable and 3% favorable. More inflation Republicans haven’t heard enough or say they don’t know.

There’s a bigger difference in how these two groups see the Republican party. Border Republicans are 94% favorable, compared to just 79% of inflation Republicans.

The two groups both overwhelmingly opposed Harris in 2024. Of those who voted, 99% of border Republicans supported Trump and 0% Harris. Among inflation Republicans who voted, 93% supported Trump and 1% Harris.

Despite supporting Trump in 2024 by more than 9-in-10, the two groups differ in their assessment of his job performance thus far. Eighty-two percent of border Republicans “strongly” approve of the job Trump is doing and only 1% disapprove. Among inflation Republicans, only 39% “strongly” approve. Most of the rest (46%) “somewhat” approve, so these voters aren’t lost to Trump, but they are low on enthusiasm for him.

That lack of enthusiasm can change elections. All these survey respondents are registered voters, and nearly equal numbers recalled voting in the 2024 presidential elections—95% of border Republicans and 94% of inflation Republicans. Despite this, the two groups vary enormously in their plans to vote in Wisconsin’s upcoming April election. Among border Republicans, 82% are “absolutely certain” they will vote. Among inflation Republicans, only 62% are so certain.

Continue ReadingBorder Republicans vs. Inflation Republicans

Wisconsin School Vaccination Rates: an interactive map

The Washington Post recently published an interactive article which shared kindergarten immunization data collected from public schools in 34 states. The data shows plunging vaccine rates across the country.

I was shocked by how low some of the numbers were, and I wanted to understand how they compared to school numbers as a whole. It’s possible than some kindergartners haven’t yet received all of the vaccination they will receive.

For example, Neeskara Elementary had an MMR vaccination rate of 12% and an overall compliance rate of 7%. Fortunately, the schoolwide numbers for Neeskara, according to WI DHS, are an MMR rate of 60% and an overall rate of 50%. Given that herd immunity against measles requires “about 95% of a population to be vaccinated,” Neeskara is still disturbingly low, but there is a world of difference between 7% and 60%. Most of the children attending Neeskara have received this vaccine–just not most kindergartners at the beginning of the year.

At MacDowell Montessori, kindergartners reported an MMR rate of 26% and an overall rate of 26%. The schoolwide numbers are 92% for MMR and 62% overall. Likewise, kindergartners at Hayes Bilingual School were at 33% for MMR and 27% overall. The schoolwide numbers are 76% MMR and 61% overall.

More details from WI DHS

Besides listing the MMR and overall vaccine compliance rates for each school, the WI DHS data also provides information about why students aren’t vaccine compliant. In most Milwaukee schools with low vaccination rates, the cause isn’t that parents have filled out vaccine waivers. According to the DHS statistics, it’s more common for students who are out-of-compliance to be classified as “in process,” “behind schedule,” or just “no record” rather than having explicitly opted-out of vaccinations by completing a waiver.

At Neeskara, for example, 20% are “behind schedule” and 28% have “no record.” Scarcely any students actually have a vaccine waiver on file. Similarly, Riverside High School has truly dismal 12% vaccine compliance rate. Eighty percent of its students are “behind schedule” and 7% are “no record.” Few, if any, have waived vaccine requirements.

Schools where many students have waived vaccines are uncommon, but they do exist. At Tamarack Waldorf, on Milwaukee’s East Side, 67% of students have met minimum vaccination requirements. Sixteen percent have “waived all vaccines” and 24% have completed a “personal conviction waiver.” The distinction between these classifications is unclear to me. So is the distinction between students who are listed as “in progress” vs. “behind schedule.”

In general, the quality of the school-level data provided by WI DHS raises as many questions as it answers. At North Division, for instance, 65% of students were classified as “met minimum requirements” in 2024, with just 5% having “no record.” The next year, in 2025, fewer than 5% “met minimum requirements” and 80% had “no record.” Absent some extraordinary turnover over students between those two years, I struggle to imagine how this could be possible. More likely: the data was reported incorrectly in one or both of the years.

Many schools also fail to submit their reports every year. In 2025, 377 schools statewide (13% of the total) failed to submit a report. But 197 of those schools had submitted a report the previous year, in 2024.

The current self-reported school vaccination data collected by WI DHS is incomplete and inconsistent where available. The failure to report this data accurately (or at all) poses real challenges to public health efforts. A health department might want to plan its vaccine outreach campaigns around those schools where children are unvaccinated, not because their parents have opted them out of immunizations, but simply because those children are apparently not receiving medical care. Better data would improve this kind of targeting.

I’ve built an interactive map showing the available data for every school in the state. Click the image below to open it. Mousing over each school will reveal its name and 2025 overall vaccine compliance rate. Click the school to display a table showing more detailed vaccine statistics for each year from 2022 through 2025. If the school failed to submit a report in any of those years, all values for the year will be NA.

Updated 2/25 to correctly identify that the Washington Post story uses kindergarten vaccination rates, not schoolwide rates.

Continue ReadingWisconsin School Vaccination Rates: an interactive map

Public opinion favors Supreme Court decision limiting Trump tariffs

In Jan. 63% said Court should rule against Trump, including 33% of Republicans

On Feb. 20 the United State Supreme Court ruled against President Trump’s authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. The case is Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump.

Public views of the case have been consistently in favor of upholding limits on the tariff authority since the Marquette Law School national poll first asked about this case in September. The table shows opinion over three national surveys.

The partisan divide on the tariff case is somewhat less stark than on many issues, with a significant minority of Republicans opposing the president’s position. A third of Republicans in the January poll wanted the Court to strike down the tariffs, an increase from 26% in November. More than two-thirds of independents favored overturning Trump’s use of tariffs, as did an overwhelming 92% of Democrats.

Approval of Trump’s handling of tariffs has consistently been below his overall approval rating in Marquette Law School national polls, with approval on tariffs below 40% in each of five polls since May 2025. In January, 26% of Republicans disapproved of Trump’s handling of tariffs, as did 71% of independents and 95% of Democrats.

A majority of the public, 56% say that tariffs hurt the U.S. economy, while 30% think they help the economy and 14% say tariffs don’t make much difference. Views of the effect of tariffs are related to opinion of how the Court should rule, as shown in the table below. Those who think tariffs help the economy are in favor of overturning the limits on the president’s authority, 77%, though even among this group more than one-in-five think the president’s authority should be limited, 23%. Among those who say tariffs harm the economy, 89% think the Court should limit presidential authority. Opinion is evenly divided among those who say tariffs don’t make much difference.

The Court and the President

A large majority of adults believe that the president must obey a Supreme Court decision, 82% with 17% who say the president can ignore a decision with which he disagrees. These views have been quite stable in 10 Marquette polls since 2019, never dipping below 76% saying the president must obey the Court, and not below 83% since Jan. 2025.

This belief in the authority of the Court is not a partisan matter. Among Republicans 76% say the president must obey the Court, as do 79% of independents and 90% of Democrats.

In January, a majority, 57% said the Court was going out of it’s way to avoid ruling against Trump, while 43% said the Court was not doing so. Among Republicans 34% thought the Court was avoiding ruling against Trump, as did 59% of independents and 78% of Democrats.

Approval of the Supreme Court

Approval of the U.S. Supreme Court has fallen since September, from 50% to 44% in January. Approval fell sharply in 2022 following the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organizationdecision which overturned abortion rights established in Roe v. Wade. Net approval, the percentage approval minus disapproval, remained negative throughout the remainder of 2022 and through 2024. In January 2025 net approval moved up into positive territory before turning down in July. The table shows approval of the Court since September 2020.

About the Marquette Law School Poll

The survey was conducted Jan. 21-28, 2026, interviewing 1003 adults nationwide, with a margin of error of +/-3.4 percentage points.

Interviews were conducted using the SSRS Opinion Panel, a national probability sample with interviews conducted online. The detailed methodology statement, survey instrument, topline results, and crosstabs for this release are available at https://law.marquette.edu/poll/category/results-and-data/

Continue ReadingPublic opinion favors Supreme Court decision limiting Trump tariffs
Older Posts